5.  The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Ylöjärvi.
6.  On 20 July 2000 she took her daughter's son to a doctor. The boy was three years old at the time.
7.  According to the doctor's report, the applicant said that she had noticed a bruise on the boy's back which might have been caused by a blow, and that his behaviour had been abnormal since he had visited his father, T. The applicant had strong suspicions that the injuries were consistent with physical violence. Furthermore, it was written in the report that the applicant had informed the doctor that the boy had said that the bruise had been caused by a punch. The applicant further stated that in January 2000 she had noticed signs of violence for the first time, but that T. had explained that the boy had fallen down the stairs. The doctor wrote in his report that the bruise noted on the boy's back was consistent with a punch, thereby supporting the boy's account, given also to the doctor, that he had been hit by his father.
8.  Later the same day, the doctor reported the alleged violence to the child welfare authorities, although the applicant had objected to a report being made.
9.  On 17 August 2000 T. requested the police to investigate whether the applicant had committed an offence by alleging that he had hit his son. He maintained that he had never struck the boy. On 22 August 2000 he further requested the police to investigate whether the applicant had committed an offence, such as deprivation of liberty, by taking the boy to a doctor.
10.  On 26 April 2001 the public prosecutor preferred charges against the applicant for defamation without better knowledge (ei vastoin parempaa tietoa tehty herjaus, smädelse dock icke emot bättre vetande). According to the charge, the applicant had given information to the doctor implying that T. had struck his son. The doctor had been given to understand that T. had struck the boy on several occasions, most recently during the previous weekend. The applicant did not have reasonable grounds to support her allegation. On 21 May 2001 T. joined the proceedings and claimed compensation from the applicant for non-pecuniary damage amounting to 10,000 Finnish marks (FIM, about 1,682 euros (EUR)) and reimbursement of his legal expenses.
11.  On 24 August 2001 the Tampere District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) held an oral hearing. In its judgment the court held that it remained unclear whether the applicant had implied that the boy had been hit by his father or whether the doctor's report merely recorded his own impression based on his discussion with the applicant and the child. Applying the principle in dubio pro reo, the court rejected the charge. The presiding judge, however, dissented, finding the applicant guilty of defamation without better knowledge. She noted that, taking the facts as presented, there were no reasonable grounds to support the belief that T. had struck the boy. She further found that the boy's own statement could not as such be considered a reasonable ground, especially given the fact that it was not known whether the applicant had discussed the bruise with him before visiting the doctor.
12.  T. appealed to the Turku Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten). On 20 February 2002, after an oral hearing, the Court of Appeal overturned the District Court's judgment and convicted the applicant of defamation committed without better knowledge. No fines or other penalties were imposed, but the applicant was ordered to pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage amounting to EUR 504.56 and legal costs of EUR 2,861.11. It reasoned:
“At the hearing [the applicant] and [the doctor] have essentially given the same account of the events as before the District Court. [The applicant] has, however, stated that having noticed the bruise on the child's back on the evening before the visit to the doctor's, she asked the boy where it had come from and he said that his father had hit him.
According to the doctor, the applicant had provided the preliminary data, which he had first written down on paper. Later they had been recorded in the medical report based on his dictation. He had dictated the information immediately after the applicant and the child had left the room. The report did not contain any conclusions reached by the doctor himself.
On the basis of the doctor's testimony and the case record, it has been proved that the applicant intentionally, albeit without better knowledge, said that [the father] was guilty of having struck his three-year-old son in such a way that she in fact gave the doctor to understand that the father had struck his son during the weekend preceding 20 July 2000. However, the Court of Appeal finds that it has not been shown that the applicant gave the doctor to understand that the father had struck his son at other times.
As described above, the applicant had discussed the bruise with the boy. The boy may also have heard the applicant make her preliminary statement at the doctor's before the doctor spoke to him. Having regard to this and the boy's age, the mere fact that he told the doctor that his father had hit him cannot be considered to be significant enough to constitute reasonable grounds for the allegation. Nor has the applicant presented any other such reasons for the allegation on the basis of which she could be considered to have had reasonable cause to believe her insinuation to be true.
On the above grounds, the Court of Appeal considers that the applicant is guilty of defamation without better knowledge.
According to the doctor, the applicant had been worried about the child's condition and he considered that the visit had been justified. Having regard to the circumstances, it was forgivable that the applicant, in whose care the child had been, had not thoroughly weighed what she had told the doctor. For these reasons the Court of Appeal does not impose a sentence, in accordance with Chapter 3, Article 5, subsection 3 (2) [of the Penal Code].”
13.  The applicant sought leave to appeal from the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen). She argued that the right to freedom of expression was violated if a person could not rely on the account of a child who had visible signs of injury or discuss his or her own impressions of the facts with a doctor, who was bound by professional secrecy, without being afraid of later being found guilty of defamation.
14.  On 17 December 2002 the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal.